Jump to content
smilesammich

Trump vs. Trump, again: Judge cites presidential tweets as he blocks DACA phaseout

 Share

99 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Quote

“The main, if not exclusive, rationale for ending DACA was its supposed illegality. But determining illegality is a quintessential role of the courts,” Alsup wrote.

In other words, it’s not up to the administration to decide whether one of its predecessor’s policies is illegal. That’s the U.S. Supreme Court’s job, and the high court hasn’t ruled on DACA’s legality.

If the Supreme Court were to rule on DACA and find that it was constitutionally sound, “then a policy supported as high up as our chief executive has been the victim of a colossal blunder,” the judge wrote, again referencing the president’s tweets.

In issuing the preliminary injunction, Alsup found that the plaintiffs — a collection of DACA recipients, universities and states — would suffer irreparable harm if the administration moved forward with plans to terminate the program in March before the case is resolved.

Frenzen, of USC, stressed that the plaintiffs weren’t challenging the president’s authority over the program but the motivations behind the decision to end it. The administration could have avoided some of its headaches if it had worked out a rationale for the move that was supported by evidence and offered it up for public comment, as required by federal administrative law.

“They could have said, ‘We intend to dismantle the program for the following reasons and this is how we’re going to go about doing it.’ That would give opportunities for civil rights attorneys, congressional representatives, experts and others to weigh in, in public comments,” Frenzen said. “If you had done your homework and complied with the law, you’d be in a very different place.”

If nothing else, Alsup wrote in his ruling, the plaintiffs were entitled to “learn of all flaws, if any more there be, lurking” behind the DACA decision. He noted that the plaintiffs had suggested the administration had terminated the program so it could be used as a bargaining chip to demand funding for a border wall. And again, he cited the president’s Twitter feed as evidence.

“A presidential tweet after our hearing gives credence to this claim,” Alsup wrote.

The tweet in question, posted by Trump on Dec. 29, read: “The Democrats have been told, and fully understand, that there can be no DACA without the desperately needed WALL at the Southern Border and an END to the horrible Chain Migration & ridiculous Lottery System of Immigration etc.” Alsup granted a request by the plaintiffs to take “judicial notice” of the tweet.

Alsup’s order notwithstanding, Trump appeared to double down on the proposal Tuesday night, stubborn as ever. “Our country needs the security of the Wall on the Southern Border,” he tweeted, “which must be part of any DACA approval.”

trump vs trump

 

pouting-trump.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So it was constionual when Obama started it with an executive in an end run around Congress, but not when Trump ended and said let Congress decide,  becuse he did not have congressional approval.

 

Somebody done gone and dropped some acid 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: Timeline
17 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

So it was constionual when Obama started it with an executive in an end run around Congress, but not when Trump ended and said let Congress decide,  becuse he did not have congressional approval.

 

Somebody done gone and dropped some acid 

Hypocrisy is the #1 virtue of some.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

So it was constionual when Obama started it with an executive in an end run around Congress, but not when Trump ended and said let Congress decide,  becuse he did not have congressional approval.

 

Somebody done gone and dropped some acid 

Quote

In other words, it’s not up to the administration to decide whether one of its predecessor’s policies is illegal. That’s the U.S. Supreme Court’s job, and the high court hasn’t ruled on DACA’s legality.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

 

It's really very simple. If it's constionual to do it with an executive orders it's also constitutional to in do it with an executive order.

 

This absurd non sense will be quickly overturned. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

It's really very simple. If it's constionual to do it with an executive orders it's also constitutional to in do it with an executive order.

 

This absurd non sense will be quickly overturned. 

 

 

it is simple, until trump contradicts himself in a tweet. :D

 

Quote

Alsup was tasked with, among other things, determining whether it would serve the public interest to leave DACA in place while litigation over the decision to scrap the program proceeds.

On this point, he had an easy answer: Trump himself had expressed support for DACA on Twitter in September, just days after Department of Homeland Security officials rescinded it.

“Does anybody really want to throw out good, educated and accomplished young people who have jobs, some serving in the military? Really!” the president wrote in a Sept. 14 tweet. Another read: “Congress now has 6 months to legalize DACA (something the Obama Administration was unable to do). If they can’t, I will revisit this issue!”

 

Does anybody really want to throw out good, educated and accomplished young people who have jobs, some serving in the military? Really!.....

Those lines seemed to capture the program’s benefits in a nutshell, Alsup wrote in a 49-page order.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: Citizen (apr) Country: Russia
Timeline
1 minute ago, Keith & Arileidi said:

Trump (and the Republican)  won't sign a clean bill. 

 

Define a clean bill?

Visa Received : 2014-04-04 (K1 - see timeline for details)

US Entry : 2014-09-12

POE: Detroit

Marriage : 2014-09-27

I-765 Approved: 2015-01-09

I-485 Interview: 2015-03-11

I-485 Approved: 2015-03-13

Green Card Received: 2015-03-24 Yeah!!!

I-751 ROC Submitted: 2016-12-20

I-751 NOA Received:  2016-12-29

I-751 Biometrics Appt.:  2017-01-26

I-751 Interview:  2018-04-10

I-751 Approved:  2018-05-04

N400 Filed:  2018-01-13

N400 Biometrics:  2018-02-22

N400 Interview:  2018-04-10

N400 Approved:  2018-04-10

Oath Ceremony:  2018-06-11 - DONE!!!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dreamers get to keep their permanent residence with a clear route to citzenship. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: Timeline
45 minutes ago, Keith & Arileidi said:

Dreamers get to keep their permanent residence with a clear route to citzenship. 

Therein lies the issue.... they don’t HAVE LPR status, and under current law, they cannot.

 

While I think it would be unfair to just send all DACA folks “back home”, since coming here as kids the US is the only home they have known, it’s also tough to just grant a waiver to ALL DACA folks, since some of them clearly violated immigration laws to get here.  It’s a slippery slope, and no matter what happens, some of them will get hurt, and some will get over on the current system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

Therein lies the issue.... they don’t HAVE LPR status, and under current law, they cannot.

 

While I think it would be unfair to just send all DACA folks “back home”, since coming here as kids the US is the only home they have known, it’s also tough to just grant a waiver to ALL DACA folks, since some of them clearly violated immigration laws to get here.  It’s a slippery slope, and no matter what happens, some of them will get hurt, and some will get over on the current system.

There is no issue and no its not tough its also not a slippery slope.
These are people lives, and not some sick partisan game to get a wall.

-Congress needs to pass a clean bill ( maybe with some fences and drones tact on).
- Trump needs sign the bill.

That was the plan when trump tried to repeal DACA.
Let congress do their job then let the president do his.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

Therein lies the issue.... they don’t HAVE LPR status, and under current law, they cannot.

 

While I think it would be unfair to just send all DACA folks “back home”, since coming here as kids the US is the only home they have known, it’s also tough to just grant a waiver to ALL DACA folks, since some of them clearly violated immigration laws to get here.  It’s a slippery slope, and no matter what happens, some of them will get hurt, and some will get over on the current system.

nope. there's a pretty strict applicant process for daca and violating immigration laws as an adult would disqualify.

 

Quote

You may request consideration of DACA if you:

  1. Were under the age of 31 as of June 15, 2012;
  2. Came to the United States before reaching your 16th birthday;
  3. Have continuously resided in the United States since June 15, 2007, up to the present time;
  4. Were physically present in the United States on June 15, 2012, and at the time of making your request for consideration of deferred action with USCIS;
  5. Had no lawful status on June 15, 2012, meaning that:
  • You never had a lawful immigration status on or before June 15, 2012, or
  • Any lawful immigration status or parole that you obtained prior to June 15, 2012, had expired as of June 15, 2012;
  1. Are currently in school, have graduated or obtained a certificate of completion from high school, have obtained a General Educational Development (GED) certificate, or are an honorably discharged veteran of the Coast Guard or Armed Forces of the United States; and
  2. Have not been convicted of a felony, a significant misdemeanor, three or more other misdemeanors, and do not otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety.

https://www.uscis.gov/archive/frequently-asked-questions

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: Timeline
15 minutes ago, Keith & Arileidi said:

There is no issue and no its not tough its also not a slippery slope.
These are people lives, and not some sick partisan game to get a wall.

-Congress needs to pass a clean bill ( maybe with some fences and drones tact on).
- Trump needs sign the bill.

That was the plan when trump tried to repeal DACA.
Let congress do their job then let the president do his.
 

Hold up, wait a minute...

 

You said, and I quote: “Dreamers get to keep their permanent residence with a clear route to citzenship. 

 

So explain to me how you think a dreamer (just a label for an illegal immigrant) already has LPR status that they should be able to keep?

Edited by IDWAF
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: Timeline
14 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

nope. there's a pretty strict applicant process for daca and violating immigration laws as an adult would disqualify.

 

https://www.uscis.gov/archive/frequently-asked-questions

 

I guess I was thinking that DACA was covering the parents of these people as well.  Is that not the case?  

 

Seems pretty lenient... allowing someone who came here in 1982 as a kid who had no control over their life, and didn’t know what illegal immigration was back then, but who then lived here 30 years... a bye.  Surely in the 30 intervening years, they could have fixed their illegal status?

Edited by IDWAF
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, IDWAF said:

I guess I was thinking that DACA was covering the parents of these people as well.  Is that not the case?  

nope. it was created for folks who were brought here as children and are hs graduates (minimum)/current students/military and with no criminal record. never made sense to me why anyone would be against it. there is no legal avenue for people who qualify under the dream act to become citizens or gain legal residence at all (even marrying a us citizen) they can only renew their daca status. and this judge today isn't touching the portion of trump's decision to stop allowing new applications. that remains in place. so we're talking about a very specific group of people, who have been keeping their end of the deal concerning the requirements of daca - which are pretty sound. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
- Back to Top -

Important Disclaimer: Please read carefully the Visajourney.com Terms of Service. If you do not agree to the Terms of Service you should not access or view any page (including this page) on VisaJourney.com. Answers and comments provided on Visajourney.com Forums are general information, and are not intended to substitute for informed professional medical, psychiatric, psychological, tax, legal, investment, accounting, or other professional advice. Visajourney.com does not endorse, and expressly disclaims liability for any product, manufacturer, distributor, service or service provider mentioned or any opinion expressed in answers or comments. VisaJourney.com does not condone immigration fraud in any way, shape or manner. VisaJourney.com recommends that if any member or user knows directly of someone involved in fraudulent or illegal activity, that they report such activity directly to the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. You can contact ICE via email at Immigration.Reply@dhs.gov or you can telephone ICE at 1-866-347-2423. All reported threads/posts containing reference to immigration fraud or illegal activities will be removed from this board. If you feel that you have found inappropriate content, please let us know by contacting us here with a url link to that content. Thank you.
×
×
  • Create New...